Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor John Cooper.

To receive declarations of interest from Members on items contained within the agenda

There were no declarations of interest stated.

Resolved:     That the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 January, 2021 be agreed as a correct record.

Consideration was given to a report asking Members to determine whether the Council should publish a Cumulative Impact Statement.

The Council’s Licensing Administration Team Manager, Matthew Burton introduced the report stating that there had been a Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP), covering the town centre, in place since July, 2013.  The existing CIP would expire on 5 April, 2021.  A consultation had taken place and this was attached at Appendix A to the report.

A map showing the area to be covered by the CIP was attached at Appendix B of the report.

It had been proposed that the assessment was required to replace the current Policy and the document would be ‘stand-alone live’, which could be amended when required without any amendment being required to the Council’s Licensing Policy.

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 2.6 of the report which outlined the information contained within Appendices B, C and D.  Paragraph 2.7 of the report provided information on the five responses received to the consultation with paragraphs 2.8 to 2.12 summarising the responses.

Councillor Hutton asked, if option one was agreed as at paragraph 5.1, could other types of premises be added in at a later date, such as late night take-away’s, if it was evidential that there was a problem.

Matthew Burton confirmed that, subject to another consultation, other premises could be added.  This was the reason for it being a live document. The submitted format of the Policy had been done to replicate what was currently in place.  Previously, under the CIP it could only relate to the sale of alcohol.  The Assessment would give a wider scope.

Councillor John Williams asked if the map showing the area could be updated as it still had the former St Giles and St Georges School showing where Castle House now stood.  Matthew Burton agreed that this could be done.

Councillor Sweeney supported this stating that anything that can be done to help the police should be done.

Resolved:     (i)         That the information provided by Staffordshire Police in

support of progressing a Cumulative Impact Assessment

that was submitted in advance of the recent consultation, be noted.

(ii)        That the information received as part of the recent consultation be noted.

(iii)       That, it be agreed that there is currently an evidential

basis to publish a Cumulative Impact Assessment to

‘replace’ the current Cumulative Impact Policy.

To consider the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committees which have met since the previous Licensing and Public Protection Committee.

Resolved:     That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January, 2021 be received.

To receive declarations of interest from Members on items contained within the agenda

There were no declarations of interest stated.

Consideration was given to a report which Members had requested regarding possible variations to the Public Spaces Protection Order in respect of Dog Controls.

The Council’s Environmental Health Team Manager, David Beardmore introduced the report stating that Members had concerns about the number of dogs that could be taken into specific locations.  Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 2.6 which outlined various locations that had been part of a consultation exercise.  Residents were happy for the six-dog control to continue.  Members had previously felt that six was a high number.

One in four households in the borough had at least one dog with very few having a considerable number – four percent had 3 dogs and only 280 families had four or more dogs.

Complaints received to the Council (approximately twenty per year) were not about high numbers of dogs but about interactions with somebody with one, maybe two dogs. Quite often the interaction was one dog to one dog.

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph three of the report which outlined the options to be considered.  There was no evidence that reducing the number of dogs would reduce the number of complaints received.  If Members wished to change the numbers of dogs or the locations this would need to go out to public consultation.

Councillor Hutton stated that some dog societies had felt that four dogs was the maximum that should be under the control of one person and asked David Beardmore if he had any views on whether it should be four or six dogs.  David Beardmore stated that there was evidence in the larger urban areas where there was greater footfall, for example in London parks, much smaller numbers had been set but it would not make a lot of difference across the Borough.

Councillor Gill Williams asked if commercial businesses who were allowed to use parks and public spaces, were insured.  David Beardmore stated that commercial dog walkers did not need to be licenced by the Council and therefore there was no obligation for them to be insured.  However, they may have whatever insurance they felt was appropriate to protect themselves. 

Councillor Jill Waring supported the recommendations.  As they had been in force for six years with no problems there was no reason why they needed to change.  Councillor Sweeney agreed, stating that he had never had this kind of issue brought to his attention by residents.  Councillor Northcott also agreed, stating that there had been no specific evidence to suggest that the rule would not apply.

Councillor Gill Williams proposed that the variation be changed from six dogs to a maximum of four dogs to be walked by one person in all Council owned parks and open spaces.  Councillor John Williams seconded the proposal, stating that walking towards someone with six dogs could be quite intimidating.

The proposal was voted upon:  6 for and 7 against.  Therefore the original recommendation was voted upon: 7 for and 6 against.

Resolved:     (i)         That the report be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Consideration was given to a report seeking approval of the Public Protection Sub-Committee arrangements.

Members’ attention was drawn to the table at paragraph 2.4 which set out the rota to 30 March, 2022.

Concerns were raised by Members who were unable to attend the daytime or evening slots scheduled for them.  It was suggested that an administrative error in the preparation of the table had swapped Members around and would be revisited and brought back to the next meeting.  In the meantime the current rota could be used for the sub-committee meetings.

Resolved:     (i)         That the report be received and the date and time that

Members’ proposed attendance at subcommittee is necessary, be noted.

(ii)        That, should Members be unable to attend the sub-

committee that they notify Democratic Services of an available substitute.

To resolve that the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the attached report, because it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved:-                That the public be excluded from the meeting during

consideration if the following matter because it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1,2 and 7 contained within Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972

To consider the minutes of the Public Protection Sub-Committees which have met since the previous Licensing and Public Protection Committee.

Resolved:       That the Minutes of the meetings held on 20 January, 10

February and 3 March, 2021 be received.

To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972

There was no urgent business.